If spineless Republicans force a withdrawal from Iraq knowing full well what will happen if we leave too early (namely wholesale slaughter) then I can tell you with 100% certainty, the political skins they are trying to save will not……

Who is surprised at this? I’d KILL my kids if they signed up right now.

Posted by: Carey | Jul 9, 2007 10:42:55 AM

First quote, after the ABC story. Interesting…okay to kill your kid, but not send them off to fight.
I think anyone who’s read any of my comments regarding this issue know where I stand. Anybody I personally know who’s been there, or is there believes in this mission. I can’t speak nor would I try to, for anyone else, this is just people I know. When they stop believing, I’ll reevaluate my stance.
What I despise is the politics as usual, during a time of war. And the ratings game being played by the media. Who’s got the better headline? Don’t they understand that people deployed do see what they’re saying? And this I support the troops, but…Doesn’t fly. Again, just my personal experience

Given that a war is inevitable, I would argue that the sooner the better. The longer the war is delayed the more atomic weapons they will have and the worse the environment will be when the killing is done.

As far as the sacrifices of our soldiers so far in Iraq, they have been worthwhile. They demonstrate that we tried our darnedest to be nice and spread democracy in the Muslim world. Sadly, the savages don’t want it. The lesson we should draw from Iraq is BushPatsy not BusHilter.

We couldn’t do it since the toppling of the Taliban. So let them try it out, once all the myriad militias have been strengthened. If they do, then by all means, resume a carpet bombing of Afghanistan (and/or Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, et al). All I am advocating is – stop trying to make Switzerlands out of these countries.

- In the US, the perception is of the Iraqis.
- In the rest of the world, the perception is of the US.

In this country, we tend to look at the Iraqis: their progress in some areas, their lack of progress in other areas, and debate whether they’re worth the commitment.

In the rest of the world, the debate is whether the Americans are prepared to finish what they begin; whether Vietnam and Somalia were somehow isolated examples, or whether they in fact represent a fundamental weakness of character: America as a heavyweight boxer with a glass jaw. It can beat the crap out of you, but all you have to do is connect one punch and it starts staggering around in a daze until its manager throws in the towel.

After Somalia, bin Laden concluded that the latter was the case. For a time after 9/11 it seemed like we were proving him wrong, but lately the pendulum is undeniably swinging back in his favor.

“Power” is inexorably connected to perception. You can have the power to send soldiers anywhere on earth, to destroy nations, even to lay waste to whole regions of the planet with the push of a button; but if others believe you’re afraid to use that power, or that even if you do you’ll lose your nerve as soon as you receive some setbacks, then your power means nothing.

Indeed, there is a special form of contempt reserved for the “pitiful, helpless giant,” that encourages pint-sized bullies to impudently walk up and spit in its face with no fear of any consequences. That’s what bin Laden was getting at with his “Strong horse/weak horse” analogy.

Those who advocate ceding the battlefield to the enemy just because we’re frustrated that it’s not as antiseptic, quick and painless to beat him as we’d like it to be are missing a key point: the whole world is watching.

Take up the White Man’s burden –
Ye dare not stoop to less –
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

To those who lament about “how much we’re hated in the world,” I ask: How popular do you think we’ll be if we gain the deserved reputation as an ally not to be trusted, and an enemy not to be feared?

To those who think that by walking away from our commitment today, we’ll somehow be safer tomorrow, I ask: Was not 9/11 preceded by a string of other attacks in response to which we did nothing – or worse, retreated? Blasted barracks in Saudi Arabia, two vaporized embassies in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing, and a destroyer with a truck-sized hole punched in its side?

Take up the White Man’s burden –
Have done with childish days –
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

If weakness – real or imagined – encourages attack, then how are we safer by sending to the entire planet a message of irresolution?

Is Iraq a mess? Sure it is, in many ways. Are the Iraqis themselves slow to step up to the plate in their own cause? Many of them certainly are. But is the larger issue of our long-term security just about the Iraqis, or has it evolved into a larger question – about us, our character, and what we’ll stand up for or against, and for how long?

There are worse things that can happen to us than to be engaged in a prolonged, low-intensity conflict in Iraq. To find out what they are, all we have to do is turn our backs and walk away.

If we stay, our military keeps getting cut to peices.

Prime example of public education. The ‘Battle of Gettysberg’ is an example of the military getting cut to pieces.

krabbas, I’m with you.

One thing that should not be surprising is the politicians blaming the military for any failures. And the saddest truth of all is but for the military, the politicians would not have a job.

I am also glad to know that the thousands of troops who were injured or killed sacrificed for nothing…

What a shame.

What you retards don’t understand is that civil war means a failed state which means Afghanistan, pre-9/11. Which means terrorist breeding ground for those of you that need it spelled out for you. Actually worse, since the terrorists will draw the obvious conclusion (and easy propaganda) that bin Laden was right: America is a paper tiger, easily distracted and driven out by the most primitive barbarism and relatively small military costs/losses. Posted by: Fred

Afghanistan was a failed state only by our standards: they weren’t far worse than Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Taliban controlled 96% of Afghan territory, and their lack of control over the Panjsher valley didn’t amount to squat! While the Taliban were shunned by much of the world for stating openly what double faced Islamic governments worldwide say only privately, the fact remains that any country that was okay with a Shariah state could have perfectly normal relations with Afghanistan, as was the case with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. If you were a Muslim from one of these countries and had good relations with Islamic supremacists, you could go on a tour of Afghanistan and be perfectly safe – the only way you’d be unsafe would have been had you been anti-Taliban. But that’s how it works in much of the Middle East – if you are anti Ahmadinejad, you wouldn’t be any safer visiting Iran. I’ve so far not heard Iran being described as a failed state.

In other words, the reason al Qaeda had such a haven in terms of congregating, aside from the terrain, was that a pro al-Qaeda regime, namely the Taliban, was already in power. When Afghanistan was fully immersed in civil wars in the early part of the 90s – like Hekmatyar vs Masood, Pashtun vs Hazara, Tajik vs Uzbek, et al, al Qaeda did not have the free reign over Afghanistan in the way it did once the Taliban took over. While the Taliban did promise an Islamic paradise, the fact remains that while Muslims may be united in their hatred of Infidels, they can’t stay united when there are no Infidels around to be united against. As a result, it isn’t necessary to keep the Karzai regime propped up: simply ensuring that the internecine conflicts continue is a good way to prevent a terror base from emerging. And keep doing random periodic bombings to make sure that no party gets the upper hand. Such intervention may be minimum, since the Mohammedans do such a good job of slaughtering each other.

No need to lose our troops doing what our enemies do so well. Fight this war with brains, not just brawn.

Really. The scare headlines and defeatism are useless, and just contribute to war opponents’ attempts to squeeze maximum propaganda value out of political disagreement.

There may be some danger that the sheer momentum of hysteria leads to one or another disastrous policy switch, but, if Bush blows this, he’ll really have nothing left, and sudden NYT-style withdrawal is a childish fantasy. I think Bush and the commanders know it all very well, and a President/Commander-in-Chief has many more guns to fire, especially when the most respected institution in American culture, the military, is still on his side.

As ever, when all is said and done, there will be a lot more said than done. In the meantime, buck up!

If we stay, our military keeps getting cut to peices.

In 2005, there were over 40,000 traffic related deaths in the US. One year. We have lost 3,600 soliders in Iraq.

Should we all stop driving? A more relevant measure would be to look at military deaths before the war and measure them against the deaths during the war. You can look at that here.

It’s tragic that any of our soldiers die. But they are not being slaughtered and by any historic measurement, this is the lowest casualty conflict ever.

No suprise since they declared it a failure even before it started.

True. And considering the final Surge troops were put in place 2 weeks ago this is more a matter of left wing blabber and a few Republican who are loosing their nerve.

What has changed since the Surge began? Significant progress in a few of the provinces, Anbar and Diayla in particular, 70% of Baghdad now under control, thousands of al Qaeda and Mahdi types killed and captured, numerous weapons caches confiscated, a new oil law agreed upon by the major secterian groups and in Parliment for final ratification and on and on and on.

If our military is asking for our patience to let the plan play out, and they are, I’m a lot more inclined to listen to them than a bunch of suits on both sides of the aisle in DC.

…only if Fred has a sex change before becoming president.

Fred! is the Kwisatz Haderach, at the fulcrum, male and female at the same time.

What you retards don’t understand is that civil war means a failed state which means Afghanistan, pre-9/11. Which means terrorist breeding ground for those of you that need it spelled out for you. Actually worse, since the terrorists will draw the obvious conclusion (and easy propaganda) that bin Laden was right: America is a paper tiger, easily distracted and driven out by the most primitive barbarism and relatively small military costs/losses.

And they may be right about that.

The other lesson they will draw is to leave the mainland USA alone. Until they are ready to strike with massive force of a sort designed to cause a complete realignment of America’s foreign policy positions or to render us incapable of affecting their designs in the middle east and eurasia.

We don’t get to “opt out” of this war, savvy?

On the other hand, I don’t see the downside in muslim fratricide in Iraq. The left takes responsibility for muslims fanatics killing muslims fanatics. While the left attempts to avoid responsibility like rats avoid ferrets, I think we must not stopping talking about how the left takes responsibility by making the decision to withdraw.

Why must our troops remain in Iraq to prevent such a confrontation? Or a civil war for that matter, of which such a confrontation would only be a small part?

Is Hamas vs Fatah a confrontation that must be reversed? If not, why this one?

Bottom line is: Mission accomplished. Saddam Hussein, check. Udai, Qusay – check. Zarqawi – check. Constitution – check. Elections – check. Iraq now has its own government, and it’s not the job of the US military to keep repairing Iraqi power stations, or prevent a backlash when a mosque in Samarra is blown up, or anything of that nature. There is no need to sweat over an exit strategy – exit itself should be the strategy.

Also, staying in Iraq (let alone the surge) allows anti-US sections in both Shia (Mahdi) and Sunni (Baath, al Qaeda) to attack US troops there. Withdraw them, and while they may gloat for a few days, the follow up won’t be anything to their advantage. One will then see anti-US Sunnis, like al Qaeda, take on anti-US Shia, like al Sadr. What’s not to like about this strategy?

And in time, inshallah, this should spread throughout the Middle East. Once this war in Iraq escalates, let Shia and Sunni fighters from all over the region converge on Iraq. Let Hizbullah send its fighters from Lebanon to Iraq and take on al-Qaeda there. Let the Muslim Brotherhood send its volunteers from Syria, Jordan and Egypt to Iraq and take on al Sadr. Let Saudi and other GCC money, instead of going into new mosques from Seattle to Auckland, be used to finance this Jihad against the Sunnis. Similarly, force Iran to spend more of its cash strapped treasury to finance al Sadr and Hizbullah, and keep Iraq from becoming completely Sunni, and thereby a threat again.

Also, far from preventing a civil war in Iraq, this sort of strife should be encouraged throughout the Middle East, and all the divisions there aren’t Shia vs Sunni. In Iran, for instance, although 90% of Iranians are Shia, only 50% are Farsi. So encourage the non-Farsi peoples in Iran to revolt – the Azeris in Tabriz (encourage them to try and merge with Azerbaijan), the Arabs in Khuzestan (encourage them to team up with Ayatollah Sistani, seek merger with Iraq and cause an intra-Shia friction in Iraq itself, if one wants to avoid al Sadr monopolizing Shia opinion) and Balochistan (encourage them to rebel, both in Iran and Pakistan). And militarily, take out Iran’s nuke project, but for heavens sakes, don’t repeat the Iraq exercise in trying to keep the Iranian army intact – just destroy those sites, so that the official propaganda about Iran becoming a nuclear power – supported by even anti-regime Iranians – turns hollow.

Nor should this be restricted to Iran. This sort of unrest needs to be promoted throughout the Islamic world. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the eastern province of al-Hasa, which has most of their oil and most of their Shia, can be stirred into rebellion, and get the Saudi hands full. In Bahrein, 75% of the population is Shia – encourage them to rebel as well. In Yemen, the country is 50% Sunni and 50% Shia – encourage that division as well. Similarly, other frictions – such as Hamas vs Fatah – should be encouraged. While all this is done, the US needs to stop thinking of any Islamic country as an ally – much less a staunch ally.

And once all this breaks out, make sure that no side in any of these conflicts come out on top (as the Taliban did in 1996). Realize that we don’t have any dog in these conflicts. The only dog we have are the conflicts in and of themselves.

Feed that dog. For ever.

Of course it’ll be much worse than the predictions. God help the next president. She’ll have to spend nearly all her time dealing with this and the incalculable effects. Thomas the Wraith on July 9, 2007 at 12:32 PM

…only if Fred has a sex change before becoming president.